Caro v. Marsh USA, Inc.

Citation956 N.Y.S.2d 575,101 A.D.3d 1068,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 09021
PartiesOlga CARO, appellant, v. MARSH USA, INC., et al., respondents.
Decision Date26 December 2012
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

K.C. Okoli, P.C., New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Paul Hastings LLP, New York, N.Y. (Allan S. Bloom of counsel), for respondents.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, PLUMMER E. LOTT, and LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JJ.

In an action to recover damages for employment discrimination, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated November 17, 2011, as granted those branches of the defendants' motion which were to have all further depositions in the action conducted at the Supreme Court courthouse under the supervision of a special master or referee at the expense of her attorney, to the extent of directing that all further depositions in the action be conducted at the offices of the defendants' attorney, and be video recorded at the expense of her attorney.

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as directed that the video recording of all future depositions be at the plaintiff's attorney's expense is dismissed, as the plaintiff is not aggrieved by that part of the order ( seeCPLR 5511); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

“The supervision of discovery, and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions for disclosure, are within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court ( Ito v. Dryvit Sys., 5 A.D.3d 735, 735, 773 N.Y.S.2d 599 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Downing v. Moskovits, 58 A.D.3d 671, 873 N.Y.S.2d 320). “The Supreme Court's discretion is broad because it is familiar with the action before it, and its exercise should not be disturbed on appeal unless it was improvidently exercised” ( Provident Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brittenham, 284 A.D.2d 518, 518, 727 N.Y.S.2d 142;see Wander v. St. John's Univ., 67 A.D.3d 904, 905, 888 N.Y.S.2d 412). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its broad discretion in directing that all further depositions in this action be held at the offices of the defendants' attorney and be video recorded. The parties' respective submissions on the motion, while conflicting in some respects, both established that the plaintiff's attorney struck the defendants' attorney during a deposition; hence, an evidentiary hearing on the issue was unnecessary ( see generally Matter of Fewell...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Santaliz v. OR FM Assocs.
    • United States
    • New York Civil Court
    • May 2, 2022
    ...Dutch Church v. 198 Broadway, Inc. , 76 N.Y.2d 411, 413 n.1, 559 N.Y.S.2d 866, 559 N.E.2d 429 (1990), Caro v. Marsh USA, Inc. , 101 A.D.3d 1068, 1069, 956 N.Y.S.2d 575 (2nd Dept. 2012), leave to appeal dismissed , 21 N.Y.3d 1068, 974 N.Y.S.2d 314, 997 N.E.2d 139 (2013), Jalor Color Graphics......
  • Schmidt v. Metro. Transp. Auth.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • June 26, 2017
    ...discretion in supervising disclosure. See Alberto v. Jackson, 118 A.D.3d 733, 987 N.Y.S.2d 218 (2d Dept. 2014); Caro v. Marsh USA, Inc., 101 A.D.3d 1068, 956 N.Y.S.2d 575 (2d Dept. 2012). The determination whether to strike a pleading or to preclude evidence for failure to comply with court......
  • United Airconditioning Corp. v. Axis Piping, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • May 19, 2021
    ...Co., LLC, 120 A.D.3d 618, 621, 992 N.Y.S.2d 49 ; Clair v. Fitzgerald, 63 A.D.3d 979, 980, 883 N.Y.S.2d 536 ; cf. Caro v. Marsh USA, Inc., 101 A.D.3d 1068, 1069, 956 N.Y.S.2d 575 ). Contrary to Axis's contention, it failed to demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment awarding it damage......
  • Kaffl v. Glen Cove Hosp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New York)
    • May 29, 2018
    ...discretion in supervising disclosure. See Alberto v. Jackson, 118 A.D.3d 733, 987 N.Y.S.2d 218 (2d Dept. 2014); Caro v. Marsh USA, Inc., 101 A.D.3d 1068, 956 N.Y.S.2d 575 (2d Dept. 2012). The determination whether to strike a pleading or to preclude evidence for failure to comply with court......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT